phenn:Gaseous Anomaly: A market would do better, but there's no good way to get a functional market for healthcare in a first-world country. That's why everyone else has more fiat in their health care systems.

If corporations didn't have legislators in their back pockets, you might see some real competition for premium dollars.

I don't think that's soon to happen, though. :-(

The problem there is "confusopoly" - it's one Obamacare actually tries to make progress on by standardizing on coverages so that "bronze", "silver" etc. are roughly comparable.

In today's market, insurers have all kinds of tools to hide costs, exclusions, etc. in the plan. Insurers tend to treat their exclusion policies like nuclear secrets - trying to find out ahead of time if speech therapy will be covered in your situation? Good luck!

Customers often don't pick the best insurance plan for them during employers' open enrollment, when there are limited choices, the difference in impacts is easy to calculate, and the employer usually isn't actively trying to hide costs.

Lucky LaRue:I don't doubt the GOP bill is a pile of trash - I would be surprised if it was anything more than a rally-post for their base as they gear up for primary season. Still, I hope the Democrats give it consideration; there may be one or two things that can be integrated into ObamaCare to make it a better law.

I completey agree with you that Democrats should give serious consideration to what could be better ideas and/or approaches from the Republicans, Libertarians, space aliens, etc. I did the same as a supervisor where someone working for me came up with a good idea, we implemented and I gave credit to the idea's originator. Makes the tone of the workcenter more fun, you know.

I just don't think we're going to see that from this House of Representatives in the immediate/near future.

The mandate itself takes a few options off the table (self-insuring, concierge care) and premiums can end up rather dear if you make a decent living. I know, if you make a decent living, you should be insured. But, the offerings - gold, platinum, etc - are quite costly (according to the online calculator) and coverage percentages and out of pocket expenses don't seem quite worth it to me.

I don't get this part of your argument. Are you honestly complaining that payment on your beemer are expensive? Why don't you go for the lower brackets if the gold or platinum coverage is too expensive?

- Added a layer of bureaucracy to the mixFor whom? And how?

Well, the federal government will now have a hand in managing state medicaid disbursements. Say your state's medicaid is run efficiently. Federal oversight adds another cog. Seems redundant and unnecessary.

Well, yeah. The Federal government is injecting more money in the states' programs.It follows that it should have oversight in the spending of that money. If your state's medicaid program was already well managed, then they shouldn't need this addtitional money and wont' need the addtitional oversight either.

- Intrudes on Doctor/Patient relationshipsHow?

Approved vs. unapproved charges for services. I do think it should be between you and your doc and not according to fee schedules. Yes, I realize insurance companies already do this and there's probably no way around it.

So you're saying the "business as usual" is now the fault of the government?

- Going to be a fustercluck to managePlease explain.

See above about medicaid. Add in the IRS to collect fines/taxes on non-compliant people. I'm just not seeing how it possibly could be managed in an efficient manner. This doesn't even take into account hospital reimbursements for patients who are under the radar (homeless, etc.). Look at how screwy Medicare got when they switched things in the early 1990s. It's a confusing, cumbersome process to work through for the patient, the hospital, the doctor and so on.

You will have one extra box to fill on your tax forms, and may have to submit an extra receipt. Those that don't will have a new fine to pay. since the tax code changes every year and extra boxes to fill are added and removed every year, I don't see why this particular requirment would be more or less burdensome than the other ones.

As far as hospital reimbursement for homeless people and the others that are under the radar, things won't change all that much. If they, by some incredible fluke, manage to get insurance, their insurance company will pick up the tab. If they don't - like today - then the government will end up footing the bill, like it does today. Nothing changes there.

I'm sure there were tremendously good intentions (for some) that drove health care reform. But, it seems to me, every time the federal government puts their collective hands into something, they make it more expensive, less efficient and confusing.

Take everything I just said and table it for a moment. The core problem - cost of care - still exists and I don't think ACA will do anything but drive it up further.

You can't complain about cost of care being too high AND about bureaucrats making lists of approved charges and services at the same time. You either biatch about healtchare being too expensive, or you biatch about the Feddle Gummint forcing soshulizm down our troats. Pick one.

Gaseous Anomaly:A market would do better, but there's no good way to get a functional market for healthcare in a first-world country.

Sure there is:

1) Detach Health insurance from employment and allow insurance plans with the same provider to be carried across state lines.2) Kill all HMOs and collusion between providers and insurance companies.3) Ensure that "cash price" and "insurance price" are the same.4) Simplify coverage plans so they are more easily understood by a lay person.5) Require that pricing for all medical procedures is presented directly to the end user prior to or at the time of treatment.6) Remove restrictions on importation of exactly same medicines and medical equipment.7) Keep the ACA's Pre-Existing condition and lifetime cap bans

With those reforms in place, while not perfect, you would largely enable the functioning of market pressures.

cameroncrazy1984:Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

Lucky LaRue:Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

Cameron is fine, but after a certain point, he can't stop at "agree to disagree". Give him his two free internets so he can declare himself winnah and move on.

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

How should one respond to a pathetic dodge like that? Let's see, how about:

Lucky LaRue:This is what I least enjoy about talking with your lot. You get so overwrought you can't even put forward ideas; you just start throwing out insults and celebrating a "score."

BojanglesPaladin:Lucky LaRue: Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

Cameron is fine, but after a certain point, he can't stop at "agree to disagree". Give him his two free internets so he can declare himself winnah and move on.

Be very careful who you decide to white knight for and when you choose to do it. You are not doing yourself any favors. Asking someone to back up a very simple and direct claim like "people in the thread as saying X", with "who?" is hardly an example of someone who refuses to disagree to a ridiculous extent. While was you say about the poster may or may not be true in other circumstances, you have really thrown you hat into the wrong ring here.

Flab:You can't complain about cost of care being too high AND about bureaucrats making lists of approved charges and services at the same time. You either biatch about healtchare being too expensive, or you biatch about the Feddle Gummint forcing soshulizm down our troats. Pick one.

;-)

Believe it or not, I'm not actually biatching. I want to have the conversation and I'm interested in hearing all sides. I know. Welcome to FARK.

I think it's natural to have some discomfort with ACA. Jeebs, the bill itself is massive. My previous points still stand and, let's face it: Neither you nor I truly know how the whole thing will shake out in the end.

The one thing I do know is that cost of care is too high and quality is too low.

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

Thrag:BojanglesPaladin: Lucky LaRue: Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

Cameron is fine, but after a certain point, he can't stop at "agree to disagree". Give him his two free internets so he can declare himself winnah and move on.

Be very careful who you decide to white knight for and when you choose to do it. You are not doing yourself any favors. Asking someone to back up a very simple and direct claim like "people in the thread as saying X", with "who?" is hardly an example of someone who refuses to disagree to a ridiculous extent. While was you say about the poster may or may not be true in other circumstances, you have really thrown you hat into the wrong ring here.

Believe it or not, there are people that have been engaged in this thread all day and, while your attempts to jump on the table in the last hour and drop a steaming pile of shiat on it are amusing, it isn't something I am taking with any degree of seriousness.

cameroncrazy1984:Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

I am pretty sure that if you are incapable of reading this thread for yourself, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you of your stupidity.

Thrag:Be very careful who you decide to white knight for and when you choose to do it.

Oh Thrag. Thanks so much for the 'advice'. I haven't white-kinighted anyone, nor have I opined on anyone being "right". And speaking of white knighting and throwing your gat into someone else's ring, Cameron's a big boy and if he has an issue with my observations, then I'm sure he has a working keyboard that will serve him just fine without your assistance. All you Fark Kids TM with your funny little notions about this being some sort of combat with 'winners and losers' are just the cutest.

I like Cameron1984 because he's not a complete idiot slapfighter. That's why despite sometimes being at odds, he's not on my ignore list, but he does have a tendency to beat dead horses to a pulp, and sometimes gets caught up on arguing over extraneous incidentals in lieu of the actual topic.

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

I am pretty sure that if you are incapable of reading this thread for yourself, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you of your stupidity.

Aw, you can't even name ONE name? Come on. Just one person who said that. You have 378 comments to choose from, why can't you provide even one that backs up your claim?

cameroncrazy1984:Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

I am pretty sure that if you are incapable of reading this thread for yourself, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you of your stupidity.

Aw, you can't even name ONE name? Come on. Just one person who said that. You have 378 comments to choose from, why can't you provide even one that backs up your claim?

Are you seriously trying to argue that, if I don't do your research for you, then your point is proven? Really? And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

I am pretty sure that if you are incapable of reading this thread for yourself, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you of your stupidity.

Once again, the only appropriate reply is:

Lucky LaRue:This is what I least enjoy about talking with your lot. You get so overwrought you can't even put forward ideas; you just start throwing out insults and celebrating a "score."

You are so worked up you can't put forth anything to support your statement and you can only throw insults and smugly celebrate your imagined victory against the strawman you created. A hypocritical projection trifecta.

BojanglesPaladin:Gaseous Anomaly: A market would do better, but there's no good way to get a functional market for healthcare in a first-world country.

Sure there is:

1a) Detach Health insurance from employment

Why would you deny a company from offering health insurance as part of their benefits in order to attract employees? Secondly, the employers can usually get group rates from the insurers, thereby lowering premiums for the employees.

This solution benefits the insurance companies, and no one else.

1b) and allow insurance plans with the same provider to be carried across state lines.

While this may not be immediate. In the medium term, this will cause most insurance companies to stop doing business from the more regulated states and only offer policies that come from the states with the less regulations. Why do you think they can offer lower premiums in some states?

This solution benefits the insurance companies, and no one else.

2) Kill all HMOs and collusion between providers and insurance companies.3) Ensure that "cash price" and "insurance price" are the same.

Laudable ideal, but impractical. How can you prevent to private companies from entering into a business deal that is mutually beneficial to both of them? The amount of legislation required and the manpower to enforce it would be astronomical.

4) Simplify coverage plans so they are more easily understood by a lay person.

Again laudable, but highly unlikely. Insurance contracts are complex because legal terminology needs to be precise. I'm sure there are cases where it's overly complex to discourage Joe Q. Public from reading the fine print, but in general, there are good reasons why they are written that way. The solution you are recommending would also require heavy legislation to make sure that the insurers comply.

5) Require that pricing for all medical procedures is presented directly to the end user prior to or at the time of treatment.

What would that accomplish? You can't really ask the ambulance to turn around because the price list is too high.

6) Remove restrictions on importation of exactly same medicines and medical equipment.

Importing medicine from Canada or Western Europe may not be a big safety risk, but importing from countries where the standards of production or storage and transportation conditions can be lacking could pose seirous risks ranging from medicine that's ineffective medicine to downright dangerous.

7) Keep the ACA's Pre-Existing condition and lifetime cap bans

And enjoy the prices soaring through the roof.

With those reforms in place, while not perfect, you would largely enable the functioning of market pressures.

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Are you seriously trying to argue that, if I don't do your research for you, then your point is proven? Really? And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

Ok. Congratulations. You win the internet.

MY research? I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU made it. Why is it suddenly MY responsibility to back up YOUR claim?

So, you are suggesting that if I were to find an example of someone claiming that they disagree with everything the Republicans put forth all the time, you would concede that you are a dumbass?

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that people in this thread were saying that if Republicans are for it, they are against it. Keep in mind, that is a different claim than those (including myself) who state that they disagree with 100% of Republican ideas. Just because you disagree with an idea does not mean that you disagree with it because a Republican is for it.

Thrag:Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it".

Who?

Man, I am really starting to worry about you. Your arguments started out well reasoned but you've just gone down hill ever since. Now, you seem to just be grabbing at anything I say and replying, "Nuh-uh!"

I didn't say "nuh uh," I simply asked for you to back up your assertion. It appears you can't even do that.

I am pretty sure that if you are incapable of reading this thread for yourself, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you of your stupidity.

Once again, the only appropriate reply is:

Lucky LaRue: This is what I least enjoy about talking with your lot. You get so overwrought you can't even put forward ideas; you just start throwing out insults and celebrating a "score."

You are so worked up you can't put forth anything to support your statement and you can only throw insults and smugly celebrate your imagined victory against the strawman you created. A hypocritical projection trifecta.

Please proceed.

The funny part is, that was his response to: [ohwaityou'reseriousletmelaughevenharder.jpg]

BojanglesPaladin:Thrag: Be very careful who you decide to white knight for and when you choose to do it.

Oh Thrag. Thanks so much for the 'advice'. I haven't white-kinighted anyone, nor have I opined on anyone being "right". And speaking of white knighting and throwing your gat into someone else's ring, Cameron's a big boy and if he has an issue with my observations, then I'm sure he has a working keyboard that will serve him just fine without your assistance. All you Fark Kids TM with your funny little notions about this being some sort of combat with 'winners and losers' are just the cutest.

Do you even know what the fark you are on about? I didn't say anything about winners or losers. You are the one who mentioned "winner". And this broad brush "fark kids" crap? Really now. You are starting to engage in the same ridiculous smug strawman based ranting that Lucky is entertaining us by engaging in.

I like Cameron1984 because he's not a complete idiot slapfighter. That's why despite sometimes being at odds, he's not on my ignore list, but he does have a tendency to beat dead horses to a pulp, and sometimes gets caught up on arguing over extraneous incidentals in lieu of the actual topic. And as I pointed out, none of that is actually happening here. He asked a simple question, requesting someone to back an assertion. You interjected to make a personal attack based threadjack over that simple asking of "who". While I know that you also like to do exactly what you accuse Cameron of, never back down from even the most ridiculous of arguments, you might want to stop yourself this time.

Lucky LaRue:cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Are you seriously trying to argue that, if I don't do your research for you, then your point is proven? Really? And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

Ok. Congratulations. You win the internet.

MY research? I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU made it. Why is it suddenly MY responsibility to back up YOUR claim?

So, you are suggesting that if I were to find an example of someone claiming that they disagree with everything the Republicans put forth all the time, you would concede that you are a dumbass?

Ah, now we see why it took you so long to respond in any way to the question posed. You were busy hooking up the trailer hitch to move the goalposts.

cameroncrazy1984:Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: Are you seriously trying to argue that, if I don't do your research for you, then your point is proven? Really? And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?

Ok. Congratulations. You win the internet.

MY research? I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU made it. Why is it suddenly MY responsibility to back up YOUR claim?

So, you are suggesting that if I were to find an example of someone claiming that they disagree with everything the Republicans put forth all the time, you would concede that you are a dumbass?

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that people in this thread were saying that if Republicans are for it, they are against it. Keep in mind, that is a different claim than those (including myself) who state that they disagree with 100% of Republican ideas. Just because you disagree with an idea does not mean that you disagree with it because a Republican is for it.

At least you are learning and did not have to be reminded to remove statements that directly contradict your assertions this time. Still, however, the comment I made is still there and fairly easy to find: You're delusional if you think that people have not expressed in this thread some variation of "If Republicans are for it, then I'm against it". (again, emphasis has been added to drive home the point of your ineptitude). And the one you made (and so valiantly tried to change just now) is still there, too: I disagree with the GOP 100% of the time

If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession.

Lucky LaRue:Believe it or not, there are people that have been engaged in this thread all day and, while your attempts to jump on the table in the last hour and drop a steaming pile of shiat on it are amusing

You know, it's funny. You've got what? Like 50-60posts in this thread, and every single one of them is either "both sides are bad" trolling, or personal insults and flamebait. But I gotta hand it to you - accusing someone else, anyone else of shiatting all over this thread is the corn peanut topping on the giant shiat sundae you've dumped on us here.

Not one single post out of 60 that is actually on topic. but, yeah, it's other people who are shiatting on the thread.

cameroncrazy1984:Lucky LaRue: If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession

How is that a variation of "if a Republican is for it then I'm against it"?

It's demonstrably not the same thing.

When you start being intentionally duplicitous with your own words, then there is no way you can expect people to take you seriously.